Saturday, November 19, 2011

Harper EnviroShill Kent Calls Opposition "Treacherous"

According to Harper's greasy EnviroShill, Peter Kent, two NDP MPs who went to Washington to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline were "treacherous."

"One of the opposition parties has taken the treacherous course of leaving the domestic debate and heading abroad to attack a legitimate Canadian resource which is being responsibly developed and regulated," Kent told reporters.
The Regime obviously believes that it alone is entitled to speak on issues abroad and others failing to keep their mouths shut are treacherous. Neither Kent nor Harper will comment on the remark. Swine, both of them.

7 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Politicians breaking the law? Totally okay! No need for an investigation in most cases, and the investigations are closed without charges once the media stops paying attention. The result of million dollar elections fraud is a little fifty thousand dollar fine.

What about law-abiding politicians that dissent? That hold an opinion different than that of Our Great and Glorious Leader? Traitors, the lot of 'em.

It's a short step from treachery to treason or illegitimacy and perhaps from there to jail. (publicly built, privately operated mega-prisons, of course)

This accusation of treachery is so typical of a government that cannot tolerate dissent, and is reminiscent of their ballistic outrage when Jack Layton opined about the possible complicity of Canadian troops in the torture of captured Afghan insurgents. That earned Layton the sobriquet of "Taliban Jack.'

Until Canadians far and wide denounce these kinds of tactics, expect the character assassinations to continue from an unethical government that was elected by a minority of the people.

Layton earned the "Taliban Jack" epithet long before the reports of possible UN violations regarding the transfer of prisoners came out.It was Layton's suggestion that the prolonged incursion into Afghanistan was proving less than successful, and that perhaps a negotiated settlement of the conflict might prove fruitful, that he earned his moniker from some of the members (and their media supporters) currently occupying the government benches .Of course when Rice and Rumsfeld also expressed similar thoughts, nary a word was heard.

Why then Harper repeatedly went to New York to meet his US Con brothers and complained about ‘disastrous’ policies of the Martin government. He was whimpering all the time. XL pipeline and Tar Sands is an environmental disaster.

Harper is behaving like an atrocious dictator as he is allowing hardly any debate, in the Parliament, on many issues. It is a very depressing situation. It is interesting that there are a lot more demonstrations against this pipeline in the US than in Canada.

Yes...and something else to ponder.....Mr. Harper is going to have to learn to be much more gracious if he is going to do serious business with the Chinese. He will have to keep his mouth shut while visiting other countries about how bad China's human rights are concerned. Mr. Harper needs to be working to get homeless people off the streets in Canada first before mouthing off....people living on the street is a human rights violation big time. One thing North Americans, that includes Canada, need to know is this...China is working very diligently on alternative energy far more so than Canada. Mr. Harper needs to learn what is important to Canadians and SHUT UP about China. He has already created a situation where the Chinese have stepped back from him with his comments about China's human rights record while visiting other countries while a guest.

This is very typical of Harper's government, and is just what ought to be expected.

The newspaper-tv pundits have long spewed the line that Harper is technically competent and smart and, puzzlingly, some kind of chess-genius who likes hockey. (Like Georges Laraque?)

But if you look at Harper's background, there's not a whit of business or much academic experience: mostly a bunch of years spent among think tanks and fellow politicos. He's not had much practice in developing careful coherent arguments meant to convince skeptical people, because he's spent his whole adult life with like-minded people who broadly agree with each other, about near everything (politicos tend to develop opinions on everything).

So, if you don't agree with him, the party line, straight from the top, is that you're just a no-good doody-head who hates Canada.